AI skirmish

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

So I’m going to run a skirmish BA vs IG.

 

ChatGPT can read the table if I upload a pic of the table and provide the table measurements to it.

 

has anyone else tried this before? This won’t be happening in the next day or two so don’t hold your breath for the batrep and my overall impressions about how it works.

[DemonGSides]

AI can't get extremely easy rules questions right.  It's going to be useless.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

AI can't get extremely easy rules questions right.  It's going to be useless.

That's not how AI works.

it has to learn like any other intelligence. 
so if it’s not taught or trained, obviously it will struggle to do things.

 

its not ask Jeeves 

 

if you used it once or twice to test it by asking about rules and then rage quit because it wasn’t right on the first go, doesn’t mean it cannot learn and understand.

 

 

Edited April 6 by Grotsmasha
=] Altered 1st Sentence [=

[GSCUprising]

22 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

That's not how AI works.

it has to learn like any other intelligence. 
so if it’s not taught or trained, obviously it will struggle to do things.

 

its not ask Jeeves 

 

if you used it once or twice to test it by asking about rules and then rage quit because it wasn’t right on the first go, doesn’t mean it cannot learn and understand.

 

 

While I have not used an AI to simulate a battle, I do agree with your statement. Without going into what I do, I have used AI to analyse things for work and have employed it for around a year or so. At first, it would fluff everything up, not get context, etc., but, after a fashion and after me feeding it a tonne of documentation in form of policy, historical events, product data, and so on, it got up to speed pretty quickly. Now, when I log into it and feed it some data, it interprets in the way it knows I want the data presented, refers back to past information, notes strengths, threats, etc.

 

I think teaching it to play 40K might be a fun project. Good thinking.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

8 hours ago, GSCUprising said:

While I have not used an AI to simulate a battle, I do agree with your statement. Without going into what I do, I have used AI to analyse things for work and have employed it for around a year or so. At first, it would fluff everything up, not get context, etc., but, after a fashion and after me feeding it a tonne of documentation in form of policy, historical events, product data, and so on, it got up to speed pretty quickly. Now, when I log into it and feed it some data, it interprets in the way it knows I want the data presented, refers back to past information, notes strengths, threats, etc.

 

I think teaching it to play 40K might be a fun project. Good thinking.

I use chat gpt and turns out I can’t upload pics to it without paying :’(

 

Same experience for my fiancé as well. She’s been using it to help her design experiments for cancer research the last 2 years.

 

people expect it to just know everything from out of no where because sci-fi has depicted AI as all knowing.

 

you should ask it what it thinks about you some time lol

 

 

Edited April 8 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[GSCUprising]

@Inquisitor_Lensoven I'm using ChatGPT, also, but I am using a paid version, so have a little more flexibility. I tinkered with it yesterday, based on your idea. I uploaded the core rules, the quick start guide, the balanced dataslate and a fair few other docs. I have the hardbacks of the IA and GSC codices, but not electronic versions, so made up two army lists on New Recruit with every single unit available, including duplicates to show all the possible gear combinations, as well at detachments.

Turned out...uh...interesting to begin with, haha. Got it to make up a 500pt list for each after explaining the lists were examples of units and that it had to stick with legal units/combos only.

 

This was the first crack at a GSC list:

 

Neurotyrant (Legends) – Free Warlord Option

Provides Synapse and Shadows in the Warp (for flavour and anchoring leadership)

---

Battleline

Neophyte Hybrids x10 – 80 pts

• 2x Seismic Cannons

• 2x Grenade Launchers

• Cult Icon

---

Infantry

Acolyte Hybrids x5 – 65 pts

• 1x Heavy Rock Cutter

• 1x Demolition Charge

• Iconward Leader attached

Iconward (Leader) – 45 pts

Enhances Ambush rolls and unit durability

---

Vehicle

Leman Russ Battle Tank (Legends) – 165 pts

• Battle Cannon

• Hull Heavy Bolter

• No sponsons (to save points)

---

Support

Sentinel Scout (Legends) – 45 pts

• Multi-laser

• Chainsaw

---

Total: 500 pts on the nose
Strengths: Resilient tank anchor, Outflanking infantry, cheap objective play
Style: Industrial strike team with cult support

 

 

Me: Er....where did that Neurotyrant come from?

 

ChatGPT said:

Good catch, [my name] — that’s on me. The Neurotyrant is a Tyranid HQ unit, not part of the Genestealer Cults (even with Brood Brothers Auxilia). It shouldn't have been included — thanks for spotting it.

Let’s correct that.

 

 

From working with the AI for a while in a different context, I find the best way to teach it is to ask it questions, stating you are teaching it. For example, I think it had found an older edition GSC codex and was suggesting shotguns, etc. I also had it re-examine the Brood Brothers list and asked why it had chosen no sponsons for the Russ. It manages to work it out when prompted and rarely repeat a mistake. After a little work, getting it to look up Scout, Daring Recon and Crossfire rules and getting it to do a weapon comparison for the Scout Sentinels, I had to lead it through understanding what objectives were and why they're important. Also, after having made a 500pt list for IA with three assassins, I took the time to explain sportsmanship (though it could be argued 500pts with a Russ is a bit naff).

 

Anyhow, this is the final list it made last night. I'll tinker with it a bit more later on. It's a fun exercise.

 

HQ

Primus – 75 pts

No upgrades. Supports Acolytes with reroll 1s to Wound, anchors ambush synergy.

---

Battleline

Neophyte Hybrids x10 – 90 pts

• 1x Seismic Cannon

• 1x Mining Laser

• 1x Grenade Launcher

• 1x Webber

• Cult Icon

• Neophyte Leader: Power pick + autopistol

---

Infantry

Acolyte Hybrids x5 – 65 pts

• 1x Heavy Rock Cutter

• 1x Demolition Charge

• Acolyte Leader: Bonesword + autopistol

Primus attached

---

Vehicle

Leman Russ Battle Tank (Legends) – 165 pts

• Battle Cannon

• Hull Heavy Bolter

• 2x Sponson Heavy Bolters

Acts as a reliable anchor piece and Crossfire enabler with Integrated Tactics

---

Support

Scout Sentinel (Legends) – 45 pts

• Autocannon

• Chainsaw

Mobile fire support and Daring Recon marker for Astra Militarum rerolls

 

So, as you can see, still not perfect. For example, it confuses special and heavy weapons and still occasionally draws on older rules (see Neophytes) and points (Sentinel & Russ). There's still things to tweak, but, if you look at the reasoning, it's coming on much better. Not bad for an hour or so's tinkering around. I am sure, given time, it would be spot on.

Edited April 8 by GSCUprising

[sairence]

What benefit does this bring over actually playing the game? Like if you want to watch a battle, there's countless actual battlereports all over the internet, that can be enjoyed without first spending hours teaching a pattern recognition bot the basics of the game.

 

Like, fair play if you enjoy that activity and have the time to waste, but I just don't see any way this adds to the hobby.

[DemonGSides]

9 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

people expect it to just know everything from out of no where because sci-fi has depicted AI as all knowing.

 

Not really.  I just think it's mostly useless outside of specific use cases.

 

Wake me up when it's actually artificial intelligence. These are just fancy decisions trees. 

[GSCUprising]

5 hours ago, sairence said:

What benefit does this bring over actually playing the game? Like if you want to watch a battle, there's countless actual battlereports all over the internet, that can be enjoyed without first spending hours teaching a pattern recognition bot the basics of the game.

 

Like, fair play if you enjoy that activity and have the time to waste, but I just don't see any way this adds to the hobby.

 

It's an exercise in seeing what I can get the model to do. It's certainly not 'time to waste.'  As someone who has used it in the workplace to help resolve complex interactions in my field, I see it as a little fun to see if I can test its limits. And 'help' is the operative word here in the sense it's a tool and that, ultimately, the final decision is in the hands of the operator.

 

 

[Arikel]

 

First, my apologies if this is in error and you do have appropriate permissions in place to use the works in question.

I get that it could be interesting to see if it would be possible to get it aware enough to make lists and possibly even play a game, but I would hesitate to feed ai anymore copyrighted works, even game rules. I understand if that’s not something you considered, or even care about, but artists, authors, and even some bigger companies have already had their rights violated by ai scraping their work without needing users to voluntarily submit that information without the creator’s consent.

 

It would be more appropriate to use a game with open rights or one that you have full permission to give to an ai engine to devour.

[sairence]

1 hour ago, GSCUprising said:

 

It's an exercise in seeing what I can get the model to do. It's certainly not 'time to waste.'  As someone who has used it in the workplace to help resolve complex interactions in my field, I see it as a little fun to see if I can test its limits. And 'help' is the operative word here in the sense it's a tool and that, ultimately, the final decision is in the hands of the operator.

 

 

Maybe wasn't clear, but my question was more to the op, trying to get the AI to (I guess?) conduct a skirmish battle. Less so your list building exercise, which makes a bit more sense as an exercise for getting familiar with a tool you use in the work place. (I'd never use it for actually putting together a list I intended to run though.)

 

I have a fairly low oppinion of the hype around the tools currently pushed by the tech bro companies, starting with insultingly calling it artificial intelligence.

 

There's a lot of use for these tools, in specialised fields. The need to insert it into every facet of life serves very little purpose beyond the usual drive for investment into the companies profiting of them.

 

[Casual Heresy]

35 minutes ago, Arikel said:

 

First, my apologies if this is in error and you do have appropriate permissions in place to use the works in question.

I get that it could be interesting to see if it would be possible to get it aware enough to make lists and possibly even play a game, but I would hesitate to feed ai anymore copyrighted works, even game rules. I understand if that’s not something you considered, or even care about, but artists, authors, and even some bigger companies have already had their rights violated by ai scraping their work without needing users to voluntarily submit that information without the creator’s consent.

 

It would be more appropriate to use a game with open rights or one that you have full permission to give to an ai engine to devour.

 

Sadly the forum only lets me agree once. But this is the massive issue with AI that it's proponents will always conveniently ignore. My job is based around using and protecting copyright and it's so frustrating to come up against the same selfish and entitled arguements that pirates always use: "why should I have to pay for something? My wants are more important than other people's rights and livelihood".

 

I would dearly love to see AI kept far away from the hobby space and art in all it's forms. Let the tool be used useful things like medical research and other analysis jobs. The time and effort would be better spent painting models and enjoying games.

Edited April 8 by Casual Heresy

[Evil Eye]

This is quite an interesting idea, and I think it has merit; I'd actually say the ability to play solo-games against a computer opponent would be one of the better uses of AI/advanced procedural generation (which is what most AI is, really). I'd argue maybe ChatGPT might not be the best option, as being a generalist AI trained on an absurd amount of topics it's too unfocused to be much good for this sort of thing, but I think a purpose-made wargaming opponent AI would be a fascinating endeavour. Computer chess players have been an area of research for decades now, so why not Warhammer?

 

One major counter I'd have to the "training AI is theft" argument is that at its core, an AI using information garnered from a media work (be it a book or an image) to generate its output is not much different from a human using media he or she has consumed to inform/inspire their own work. The precise mechanics are different because the human brain and a computer algorithm are not the same, but it's more similar than you'd think; I forgot where I saw this but I've heard that the media used in training data in an AI cannot be directly extracted from the code because the original images/text doesn't actually exist inside them. If I tell Google's ImageFX to generate an image of a Warhammer-inspired dragon or tank or whatever, it can produce some very convincing results, but even if you dug into the source code of the AI the images used to train it wouldn't be retrievable, because it's been trained on the images rather than directly mashing images together.

 

It's pretty complicated, and I'm not a computer scientist but as a TLDR: If an AI generates, say, an image inspired by the work of Ian Miller from images it's been trained on it's no more theft than if a human artist does the same referencing his artwork. Both are using their knowledge of the artstyle to produce their own content, inspired from having seen/been trained on the actual art.

 

(I would definitely agree that AI grifting/overhype is not a good thing though, largely because the people touting it as a panacea are strangling genuine uses for the technology by making everyone think it's just a "press button and get product" miracle tech/snake oil, rather than as a natural progression of already existing procedural generation algorithms which definitely have uses. For hobby purposes I've found ChatGPT useful for quickly ascertaining information about paint compatibility/properties, and speaking as an amateur 3D sculptor I can see an AI that can quickly generate sculpt-brush textures being really useful, whilst "enter prompt, get model" is going absolutely nowhere.)

[Casual Heresy]

12 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

It's pretty complicated, and I'm not a computer scientist but as a TLDR: If an AI generates, say, an image inspired by the work of Ian Miller from images it's been trained on it's no more theft than if a human artist does the same referencing his artwork. Both are using their knowledge of the artstyle to produce their own content, inspired from having seen/been trained on the actual art.

 

 

I think this is the key bit that needs to be addressed. The problem with AI is not the generation of 'artwork', it is how the copyrighted material it is trained on is obtained. Next to no artists have granted permission for their work to be used in generative AI models, and yet there is plenty of cases where it seems AIs have been trained on copyrighted material without the copyright owners permission. Copyright law exists to ensure artists retain control of their work and are compensated fairly for it. And that also has to apply to companies like Games Workshop, otherwise everyone loses out, especially the struggling authors/artists/designers etc, whose work is being used without their permission or compensation. 

 

I do feel that while it is an interesting topic with strong opinions on both sides, we risk going outside the bounds of this topic. I've said my piece and I know if I keep going it will cause an issue. Might be best to restrict ourselves to @Inquisitor_Lensoven's idea and avoid any arguements or debates that could get the thread locked.

 

[sairence]

30 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

This is quite an interesting idea, and I think it has merit; I'd actually say the ability to play solo-games against a computer opponent would be one of the better uses of AI/advanced procedural generation (which is what most AI is, really). I'd argue maybe ChatGPT might not be the best option, as being a generalist AI trained on an absurd amount of topics it's too unfocused to be much good for this sort of thing, but I think a purpose-made wargaming opponent AI would be a fascinating endeavour. Computer chess players have been an area of research for decades now, so why not Warhammer?

 

One major counter I'd have to the "training AI is theft" argument is that at its core, an AI using information garnered from a media work (be it a book or an image) to generate its output is not much different from a human using media he or she has consumed to inform/inspire their own work. The precise mechanics are different because the human brain and a computer algorithm are not the same, but it's more similar than you'd think; I forgot where I saw this but I've heard that the media used in training data in an AI cannot be directly extracted from the code because the original images/text doesn't actually exist inside them. If I tell Google's ImageFX to generate an image of a Warhammer-inspired dragon or tank or whatever, it can produce some very convincing results, but even if you dug into the source code of the AI the images used to train it wouldn't be retrievable, because it's been trained on the images rather than directly mashing images together.

 

It's pretty complicated, and I'm not a computer scientist but as a TLDR: If an AI generates, say, an image inspired by the work of Ian Miller from images it's been trained on it's no more theft than if a human artist does the same referencing his artwork. Both are using their knowledge of the artstyle to produce their own content, inspired from having seen/been trained on the actual art.

 

The "it makes something new, so it really is just taking inspiration like a human" argument falls flat at so many stages, but particularly at the sheer scale of copyrighted material that was brazenly scraped and stolen. Not even because tech companies couldn't possibly afford to pay for licensed material, but first and foremost because they didn't feel the need to bother paying for it.

[GSCUprising]

5 hours ago, Arikel said:

 

First, my apologies if this is in error and you do have appropriate permissions in place to use the works in question.

I get that it could be interesting to see if it would be possible to get it aware enough to make lists and possibly even play a game, but I would hesitate to feed ai anymore copyrighted works, even game rules. I understand if that’s not something you considered, or even care about, but artists, authors, and even some bigger companies have already had their rights violated by ai scraping their work without needing users to voluntarily submit that information without the creator’s consent.

 

It would be more appropriate to use a game with open rights or one that you have full permission to give to an ai engine to devour.

All valid points and thank you for raising them.

 

The majority of the documentation in question is freely available for download on the Warhammer Community website and can be found here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/downloads/warhammer-40000/

 

The rest of the information can be found on sites given preview copies by Games Workshop, points costs and abilities for example, such as Goonhammer and Bell of Lost Souls. Take the Genestealer Codex review, for example: https://www.goonhammer.com/codex-genestealer-cults-10th-edition-the-goonhammer-review/

Failing that, I own the hardback copies of the codices and the digital code contained in the reverse.

 

I've also enabled all privacy controls on the platform I am using, though that depends on your level of trust, I suppose.

 

Now, I'm no solicitor in the field of intellectual property and would never knowingly breach the rights of the holder and believe I have taken sufficient care.

 

That said, I repeat again, all valid points you raise.

 

5 hours ago, sairence said:

Maybe wasn't clear, but my question was more to the op, trying to get the AI to (I guess?) conduct a skirmish battle. Less so your list building exercise, which makes a bit more sense as an exercise for getting familiar with a tool you use in the work place. (I'd never use it for actually putting together a list I intended to run though.)

 

I have a fairly low oppinion of the hype around the tools currently pushed by the tech bro companies, starting with insultingly calling it artificial intelligence.

 

There's a lot of use for these tools, in specialised fields. The need to insert it into every facet of life serves very little purpose beyond the usual drive for investment into the companies profiting of them.

 

Agreed and I apologise if I took your words out of context.

I find it a very useful tool in my work. I can feed it a bunch of data and say 'throw this into a spreadsheet for me with the headings X, Y, and Z, and draw conclusion based on parameters A, B, and C,' or 'based on previous models, how does this compare? Specify this, that, and the other.' I could do all this myself, but the AI tool makes it a lot quicker. That said, I always sanity check the work.

My thoughts were just an experiment on how and if it could learn a three-dimensional game in non three-dimensional space. I was curious. I'm dropping out of any battle report scenarios, since this doesn't pique my interest. That said, I will not dismiss anyone for pursuing it.

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Casual Heresy said:

I would dearly love to see AI kept far away from the hobby space and art in all it's forms. Let the tool be used useful things like medical research and other analysis jobs. The time and effort would be better spent painting models and enjoying games.

 

100% agree. AI should, hopefully, be used to make us spend less time working and spending more time pursuing arts and creativity.

 

Very funny to watch it leveraged CONSTANTLY to steal creativity and be utilized to undercut artists. And by funny, I mean horrifying. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

12 hours ago, sairence said:

What benefit does this bring over actually playing the game? Like if you want to watch a battle, there's countless actual battlereports all over the internet, that can be enjoyed without first spending hours teaching a pattern recognition bot the basics of the game.

 

Like, fair play if you enjoy that activity and have the time to waste, but I just don't see any way this adds to the hobby.

Mid week skirmish to allow you to test something new out before taking it against a human opponent on the weekend.

 

3 hours ago, Casual Heresy said:

 

I think this is the key bit that needs to be addressed. The problem with AI is not the generation of 'artwork', it is how the copyrighted material it is trained on is obtained. Next to no artists have granted permission for their work to be used in generative AI models, and yet there is plenty of cases where it seems AIs have been trained on copyrighted material without the copyright owners permission. Copyright law exists to ensure artists retain control of their work and are compensated fairly for it. And that also has to apply to companies like Games Workshop, otherwise everyone loses out, especially the struggling authors/artists/designers etc, whose work is being used without their permission or compensation. 

 

I do feel that while it is an interesting topic with strong opinions on both sides, we risk going outside the bounds of this topic. I've said my piece and I know if I keep going it will cause an issue. Might be best to restrict ourselves to @Inquisitor_Lensoven's idea and avoid any arguements or debates that could get the thread locked.

 

Does a copyright owner have to grant a human brain permission to look at something publicly available?

[Brother Tyler]

Am I the only one that heard HAL 9000's voice when reading @GSCUprising's report of his interaction with ChatGPT? 

 

So the query that I'm seeing concerns whether or not one could provide pictures of a game in progress to an AI program and then have that program develop a narration/battle report based on the pictures. A follow-on to the question is the limited discussion concerning the preparation [of the AI] that would be necessary to enable the AI program to perform the required functions (with a tangent about the legality of any potential preparations). And all of this has been predicated on the question about whether or not anyone has actually done this, or knows of anyone having done this.

 

Is that correct?

 

It's an interesting proposition, to be sure. I'm not sure whether the complaints about AI adversely affecting creatives are relevant here. The proposition, after all, appears to be about using AI in a time-saving way. If achievable, players would simply provide data and images of the game from initial deployment through to conclusion, allowing the AI to develop the narration/battle report without the players having to take notes or compose the finished work (though some editing of the work would probably be necessary). Imagine being able to play a game with the cameras rolling and having the AI create the battle report for sharing with others without having to slow down to record data or having to recall (and likely forget/misremember) what happened during the game. Yes, there are lots of battle reports available online in video and other formats, but, if this hypothesized AI-reported battle report concept ever comes to fruition, we could have even more battle reports. The basic concept still fully involves creatives, but uses AI to save them time in the administrative aspects of developing the battle report. Unless you really like the administrative aspects of writing battle reports (and more power to you if you do), what's not to like about AI doing that drudgework for you?

 

Overall, however, it seems like it would involve considerable time and work to enable any AI to perform this work, especially with a game that is as complex and dynamic (in that the rules are ever-changing) as Warhammer 40,000. I could see simpler games (like Space Hulk) being the perfect test bed for this kind of thing. And though my curiosity is piqued, this isn't something that I'll ever spend time working on. If someone else makes it happen, though, they'll be a hero.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

33 minutes ago, Brother Tyler said:

Am I the only one that heard HAL 9000's voice when reading @GSCUprising's report of his interaction with ChatGPT? 

 

So the query that I'm seeing concerns whether or not one could provide pictures of a game in progress to an AI program and then have that program develop a narration/battle report based on the pictures. A follow-on to the question is the limited discussion concerning the preparation [of the AI] that would be necessary to enable the AI program to perform the required functions (with a tangent about the legality of any potential preparations). And all of this has been predicated on the question about whether or not anyone has actually done this, or knows of anyone having done this.

 

Is that correct?

 

It's an interesting proposition, to be sure. I'm not sure whether the complaints about AI adversely affecting creatives are relevant here. The proposition, after all, appears to be about using AI in a time-saving way. If achievable, players would simply provide data and images of the game from initial deployment through to conclusion, allowing the AI to develop the narration/battle report without the players having to take notes or compose the finished work (though some editing of the work would probably be necessary). Imagine being able to play a game with the cameras rolling and having the AI create the battle report for sharing with others without having to slow down to record data or having to recall (and likely forget/misremember) what happened during the game. Yes, there are lots of battle reports available online in video and other formats, but, if this hypothesized AI-reported battle report concept ever comes to fruition, we could have even more battle reports. The basic concept still fully involves creatives, but uses AI to save them time in the administrative aspects of developing the battle report. Unless you really like the administrative aspects of writing battle reports (and more power to you if you do), what's not to like about AI doing that drudgework for you?

 

Overall, however, it seems like it would involve considerable time and work to enable any AI to perform this work, especially with a game that is as complex and dynamic (in that the rules are ever-changing) as Warhammer 40,000. I could see simpler games (like Space Hulk) being the perfect test bed for this kind of thing. And though my curiosity is piqued, this isn't something that I'll ever spend time working on. If someone else makes it happen, though, they'll be a hero.

No, what I’m proposing is playing against an AI by uploading pictures of the table.

and upon further thought uploading pictures of each unit since my models may not be easily identifiable by the AI since they either have conversions done or in very different paint jobs than the official art.

[Brother Tyler]

Ah, I guess your allusion to a battle report in the first post threw my 6th-grade reading comprehension off.

 

An AI-run game is a different kettle of fish altogether. I'm reminded of various efforts to pit computers versus humans in chess. The limited options and lack of chance in chess make AI gaming tenable. I'm not sure (though I won't bet on it) that the significantly more variable Warhammer 40,000 (or other tabletop miniature wargames) would be any easier for the AI. Since AI (or machine learning, if you prefer) is far more complex than "simple" computers, however, I suppose anything is possible. After all, modern video games are an application of this principle (though my son's derision of "bots" in Fortnite points out the limits of computer-/AI-controlled forces in a dynamic and variable environment).

 

Switching from battle reports to actual gaming, I stand by my recommendation to start with something simpler (I default to Space Hulk once again). While I'm much less interested in AI as an opponent, it would be interesting to see some 50-pound brain make this happen.

[One Paul Murray]

It is terrifying to think that people upload information to ChatGPT for work. Where I work IP is a thing (as in, it forms part of the job) and we've come across loads of leaks from engineers pushing info across Github without realising it was publicly referenceable, etc.

 

Everyone pushing company reports and data into an AI system is providing third parties with all that info. Terrifying.

[Arikel]

Quote

I've also enabled all privacy controls on the platform I am using, though that depends on your level of trust, I suppose.

This is the important part  I would think, if it means that it isn’t feeding the information back to the ai maker for general use by the ai or others.

 

As a thought experiment, it seems wonderful. I have often wished to play a computer game with an actual full implementation of the 40k ruleset myself, as I don’t get to play very often (maybe 2-4 times per year), but I think if GW was going to do that they surely would have already. Assuming AI would would work better for this than traditional scripted opponents, as it would have perhaps a bit unpredictability to it (for example, in Blood Bowl 2 I have never ever seen the computer attempt a pass, even with teams that should be passing, the script is not tweaked much if at all for different teams, where as a proper ai should be more flexible one would imagine)

 

I would be interested to see if you are able to get it to play a game in the end.

[sairence]

9 hours ago, Arikel said:

This is the important part  I would think, if it means that it isn’t feeding the information back to the ai maker for general use by the ai or others.

I wouldn't believe that for a second, even if they said so. The reason these tools are mostly free is so that the companies can get people to feed more data into them.

 

On a separate note, the Blood Bowl AI is and always has been, unbelievably poor and pointless, simply because Cyanide never had any interest in making it good.. Was that way in BB2, is the same in BB3. It's a terrible game unless you play multiplayer. 

[GSCUprising]

10 hours ago, One Paul Murray said:

It is terrifying to think that people upload information to ChatGPT for work.

Agreed. That has the potential for some unfortunate consequences. Which is why I never said I did.

 

Anyhow, back on topic, I'll be tinkering with it to see how it understands list-building in relation to thematic lists, awareness of victory points and how they're captured, sportsmanship, and the like. I'll have a mess around over the weekend and report back.

 

I've little interest in playing a 'game' with one, though I could see how it could be useful in future GW computer games or something like Tabletop Simulator for people who cannot get out of the house to play, for example. Just throwing ideas out there.

Edited April 10 by GSCUprising
Edit - I have fat fingers